On Wed, 25 May 2011 18:02:49 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote: > On Thu, 26 May 2011 03:10:11 +0400, Dmitry Kurochkin <dmitry.kurochkin@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Wed, 25 May 2011 15:46:40 -0700, Carl Worth <cworth@cworth.org> wrote: > > Well, emacs trunk is not broken :) The bug is in lisp code, so you can > > fix it in .emacs by redefining `isearch-range-invisible' function. I do > > that now. > > Oh, in that case we can fix this is notmuch emacs lisp by just defining > and using a fixed function. Is the broken function something we're > calling directly? Or is it being called indirectly? (being called by > other emacs lisp code that we are calling)? > It is called indirectly. What is the best way to fix it? I imagine that we can replace `isearch-range-invisible' function with another one, which would call the fixed function if some special variable is set, or if we are searching in a notmuch-show view. Otherwise it would call the original function. > If we can incorporate the fix, that would be great. > > > Please consider pushing other patches from the series. They do not fix > > any bug, but do simplify the code. The last patch uses list for > > invisible overlay property as well. But it does not break isearch > > because we do not search in hidden messages. > > Hmmm... we should probably do that. I'd like isearch in notmuch to > search anything that is hidden. > That is easy to fix. I can do that once we are done with this stuff. > > BTW would be nice to have a set of known-to-fail tests, i.e. bugs that > > are not fixed yet. If we had it, the above test could be implemented > > and committed before we have the fix pushed. > > We do! Use test_expect_equal_failure (yes, the name is horrible!) > instead of test_expect_equal and you should get what you want. > I should look at it, thanks. Regards, Dmitry > -Carl > > -- > carl.d.worth@intel.com